Opinion Blog

High Court makes the right call to knock down Arizona’s “citizenship” voting law

Voting is a right. People have shed blood both here and in other countries to affirm that the authority to vote is not something to be taken lightly.

The U.S. Supreme Court made the right call today in rejecting Arizona’s law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship. The court’s decision is in keeping with this DMN editorial position (excerpted below) and Editorial Page Editor Keven Ann Willey further elaborates on the reasoning behind our position in this Ask the Editor column.

Efforts to limit the franchise should automatically raise suspicion, not only because they challenge the fundamental act that defines a democracy but because history has repeatedly shown the corrosive impact of exclusion at the ballot box. Yet over the last two years, state governments across the nation have imposed laws that make it harder for people to vote, reversing decades of advancement. This trend is both alarming and beyond dispute.

States have cut back on early voting and restricted voter registration drives. In Florida, the League of Women Voters was forced to suspend its voter registration efforts after 72 years because a new law greatly impedes its efforts. Most notably, Texas and eight other states passed laws requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification before casting a ballot. In 2011 alone, more than 30 states introduced this kind of legislation. The ID cards permitted under these laws vary so widely that voting access is now almost whimsical.

As I interpret the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision today, the turning point is the authority of states vs. the authority of the federal government to mandate voting restrictions. It is interesting to note that Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded federal law trumped attempts by states to go beyond federal law. This is a key principle to uphold, one that keeps states from arbitrarily rolling back voting rights victories from the 1960s to a time when some voters were subjected to extraordinary or completely misguided standards with the sole purpose of making sure those voters didn’t make it to the polls. .

Federal law allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” If you want to vote, you check a box for yes and sign the form under the penalty of perjury if you’ve lied. Thee Arizona law made would be voters to prove citizenship by providing birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or state driver’s licenses and other documents.

I hope this ruling will be viewed as more than a procedural clean up of conflicting state and federal laws and as a win for protecting access to the ballot box. But I’m not so sure because the Court has yet to rule on the challenge to the pre-clearance section of the Voting Rights Act. I would hope the state would keep in place the framework and intent of the Voting Rights Act, which I think remains the backbone to fair access in an environment of partisan redistricting If the court changes these rules, I’d urge them to do it carefully.

Top Picks

Comments

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.

ArchivesAbout this blog

About this Blog

The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board was the first editorial board in the nation to use a blog to openly discuss hot topics and issues among its members and with readers. Our intent is to pull back the curtain on the daily process of producing the unsigned editorials that reflect the opinion of the newspaper, and to share analysis and opinion on issues of interest to board members and invited guest bloggers.